[aur-dev] AurJson - orphan packages

Gergely Imreh imrehg at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 02:02:49 EDT 2009

2009/9/17 Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>:
> On Thu 17 Sep 2009 12:31 +0800, Gergely Imreh wrote:
>> Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the objection to a single line of
>> $row['Orphan'] = ($row['MaintainerUID'] == "0" ? "1" : "0");
>> which was countered with a suggestion of a full database re-query.
>> Would THAT really take that much shorter? Have to do some checks in my
>> test aur install to wrap my head around it. Would have thought that
>> AUR has a lot of other inefficiencies that can be improved (pretty
>> sure that my PKGBUILD parsing routines are no exceptions), before we
>> worry about a single "if".
> My concern is that nowadays the JSON interface is being accessed quite a
> lot. That can only grow as more users access the site and more features
> are added. It's best to be prudent and get the best value out of the
> code that we can. Those instructions don't add any value in my opinion.
> I see it as the equivalent of adding:
>    # This is a comment
>    echo "";

I agree with the best value of code completely. Didn't know the usage
statistics, and I didn't really use the json interface (or used it
until now), only when there were things to fix. I start to like it,
though. :)

The example of Zero Added Value: come on, that's not quite the same.
An output variable that you prefer with another name but maybe some
would like the way I sent it, compared with an empty instruction?
Opinions disagree, and I know very well, that the "patches are
welcome" != "your patch will be applied". The discussion is very
helpful and I certaily learn from it. Also, will try not to turn these
things into bikeshed painting...

>> Having said all this, I can see the point of returning the username /
>> "orphan" (or username / ""?) instead of Orphan logical variable. I
> There's no possibility of someone having "" as a username, so that's
> best. No extra processing either.

Sounds good.

>> wouldn't have chosen it myself originally because of the extra
>> database hit, but now it seems to be more in line with the behaviour
>> of the web interface.
> Sorry. I was just showing how to grab the Username in a query.
> You would build that into the existing queries, so there's only one
> query per rpc request.

My fault, should have read it more carefully. And my SQL needs to be
improved anyway, so my original objection had no basis.

>> Loui, do you want to write that changes, or should I send an updated
>> patch? I don't mind either way, glad to get the job done. :)
> You're certainly welcome to give it a shot.
> If you're finding it difficult, I can write the patch.
> I'm a bit lazy though. :P

Sure thing. I know what it should do, so shouldn't be to bad. Be back
with some code later.

More information about the aur-dev mailing list